nothin Mullins Unleashes “Sexual Predator” Charge | New Haven Independent

Mullins Unleashes Sexual Predator” Charge

In the final paces before Tuesday’s special election for state senator, the Republican candidate tied his Democratic opponent to a supporter’s 2010 tax-reform bill and accused his opponent of seeking to let sexual predators into the women’s room.”

Republican Steven Mullins made those charges against Democrat Gary Holder-Winfield in a flurry of direct-mail pieces, robocalls and TV spots. The two face each other in a special election Tuesday for the 10th District state Senate seat vacated last month by New Haven Mayor Toni Harp.

Even in the annals of last-minute mud-slinging, the charges stood out as explosive. Read further in the story for some fact-checking.

The 10th District covers the western half of New Haven and a slice of West Haven; polls open from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. To see if you live in the 10th District, call the Registrar of Voters at (203) 946‑8035; Click here to find out where to vote.

Mullins, who like Holder-Winfield qualified for the state’s public-financing program, used much of that money this past weekend to spread the two new attacks.

Let’s take them one by one.

The New “$1,700” Tax

Two separate flyers appeared in district mailboxes Saturday offering different versions of an argument suggesting that electing Holder-Winfield would bring about a new statewide property tax that would sock each voter with $1,700 of new taxes to pay.

The fronts of the flyers show elderly couples receiving this new bill and preparing to lose their homes.

Married 50 years. Worked a lifetime. LOSING THEIR HOME.” read one of the headlines.

The headline on the other side informs voters: Hartford politicians want a crippling statewide property tax. And they want Gary Holder-Winfield.”

The robo-calls told voters they needed to elect Mullins to stop the Democrats from raising their taxes $1,700. A TV commercial called on voters to elect him in order to stop this outrageous statewide property tax” that will cost them $1,700.

Vote Steve Mullins to STOP the statewide property tax,” read the headline atop the back of the other campaign flyer. The flyer mentions a pledge” to oppose the tax. It mentions that Mullins is the only” one of the (two) candidates in the race to sign a pledge” to oppose the tax.

The flyers don’t actually say that Holder-Winfield has ever supported this proposal. That is accurate. No one has had a chance to vote on this proposal.

No such proposal is before the state legislature. A version was introduced in 2010 by New Haven state Sen. Martin Looney and New Haven state Rep. Juan Candelaria. The bill would have created a statewide property tax of one to five mills,” then redistributed that money back to local communities. It never made it out of committee. No one has voted on it since.

One of the flyers reproduces that bill; if you look closely enough you find the 2010 date, without a mention that the bill never advanced and hasn’t been revived. Looney and Candelaria both support Holder-Winfield’s candidacy.

Then how did Mullins get to the $1,700 part? By citing a UCONN study.” A footnote in small type at the bottom of flyer refers to a Summer 2013: The Connecticut Economy. University of Connecticut.”

That turns out to be the name of a quarterly publication. Read the cited issue here. The issue doesn’t address Looney’s proposal. In an article about different ways of funding education, it makes a passing reference to the impact of a statewide property tax. Adding a 7.68 state mill rate increases that bill by another $1,615 or 32%,” the reference reads. That’s 7.68 mills, not 1 to 5. And $1,615, not $1,700.

Contacted Sunday night, Mullins said he believes that is indeed the reference. He said the campaign rounded” the numbers.

Looney said Sunday that even if those numbers were real — even if the proposal still existed — it would never have cost voters in New Haven and West Haven $1,700. The point of the bill was to address the disparities of state’s reliance on property taxes, charging people in wealthy towns less than people in poor communities for similarly priced properties. It would send more money from places like Greenwich to lower-income areas like New Haven and the slice of West Haven in the 10th District. The point of the now non-existent proposal was to lower tax bills in the 10th District, he said.

What Mullins is basically saying is that he wants to protect taxpayers in Greenwich at the expense of people in New Haven and West Haven,” Looney argued.

This is absolutely ridiculous,” Looney said of Mullins’ tax-hike argument. It’s a completely cynical thing which Republicans often do, to throw out an issue like that to fraudulently represent the position of the other side and hope that people will not be knowledgeable enough in a low-turnout election. A completely fraudulent way to campaign.”

Holder-Winfield said he’d never voted on the proposal. Asked if he’d support it, he said he’d have to examine it first to make sure it would lower tax bills in the district.

Paul Bass Photo

Mullins is fitted for a TV mic before a New Haven press conference earlier this month.

Mullins defended the flyers and calls. He said that next year the Democrats could very well raise the proposal again, in a non-election year.

He also noted that the bill did not spell out that local municipalities would have to use any money redistributed form the property tax to lower their own community’s tax bill.

But even if the proposal socked it to Greenwich rather than West Haven and New Haven, it would still end up costing people jobs in the district, Mullins argued. That’s because, he predicted, higher bills in the state will drive business elsewhere in the country, taking jobs and tax revenue with them.

Even additional taxes on so-called wealthier communities are not going to help the state one bit,” Mullins said. Business will go to Texas.”

Twisted”

That attack was mild compared to Mullins’ other final-weekend broadside, accusing Holder-Winfield of twisted priorities.”

Gary Holder-Winfield’s bill would let sexual predators into the women’s room,” the headline to the flyer reads.

It pictures two young African-American girls while attacking Holder-Winfield for labeling it a civil right’ for some men to use the same bathroom as women and girls.”

It goes on to accuse him of creating new reasons for people to worry about perverted sexual predators, pedophiles … lurking in the women’s room.”

Meanwhile, in one of his TV commercials (click on the video to watch), Mullins speaks of how as a Christian,” I don’t know why anyone would want a grown man to use a girls’ bathroom.”

You may recognize these arguments — if you followed the debate in the legislature over the bill in question. Opponents of gay and transgender rights made those arguments against the bill, which Holder-Winfield did indeed sponsor. The 2011 bill banned discrimination against transgender people. During the debate, opponents spoke about fears of men going inside women’s bathrooms. Supporters in turn spoke of the dangers faced by women who were formerly men needing to go inside women’s bathrooms. Overall, though, the bill wasn’t about bathrooms. It was about ending discrimination against people who undergo sex changes and often have to fear losing their jobs or homes or lives as a result; it did also protect their ability to use public restrooms according to their gender. Proponents argued that opponents trivialized” the bill by focusing the debate on bathrooms; they also noted that it’s not illegal for a man to use a woman’s restroom.

Holder-Winfield led the fight for the bill’s passing in the House of Representatives. I hope this legislation will help those who have suffered discrimination and give them the chance to live free from fear and intimidation,” he said at the time (as Christine Stuart reported in this article).

Mullins was asked Sunday how Holder-Winfield’s bill led to risks of rape.

You or I can put on a skirt and a blouse and a wig and go into the girls’ room and get their kicks” at a place like Planet Fitness under this bill, he replied.

Holder-Winfield, center, and Sen. Murphy greet Westville voter Bennett Graff (left) Sunday.

Holder-Winfield responded that rape — which can be carried out by members of either sex against members of either sex is already illegal. If a woman rapes a woman, it’s illegal,” he noted. (Holder-Winfield was sexually abused as a child.)

Holder-Winfield stood by his bill. We should not discriminate against people because of their gender,” he said. A transgender female is a female.”

Mullins is correct that supporters called Holder-Winfield’s proposal a civil-rights bill. For years the gay rights movement has met with resistance among some in the African-American church who take umbrage at linking the cause to the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.

Mullins’ placement of African-American girls in the picture is no accident. He has made a point of appealing to voters in New Haven’s black churches during this campaign; the black church has historically taken a conservative stance on gay-rights and transgender proposals. Mullins noted that tradition in a conversation Sunday evening. I have talked to black people in New Haven churches. They are insulted that he is calling this a civil right. This is not what Dr. King marched for.” Holder-Winfield has from his first run for state office in 2008 aligned himself with gay civil-rights advocates; his campaign in that 2008 state representative election opposed gay marriage, while Holder-Winfield supported it.

It’s twisted what he’s doing,” Holder-Winfield said of Mullins’ flyer. He’s using a group of people and negative feelings [other] people have against them because they don’t understand them, [in order] to scare the hell out of people.”

As he spoke Sunday, Holder-Winfield was walking the streets of Westville with U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy to knock on voters’ doors. Murphy — citing his experience enduring a daily torrent of personal attacks from self-funded multimillionaire Linda McMahon in the 2010 campaign — offered words of solace.

That stuff doesn’t smell right to people,” Murphy reassured him. They know there’s not a candidate in the world that supports more rights for sexual predators.”

Previous coverage of this race:

Mullins Gets Churched
Mullins Asks State To Seize” New Haven Election
On The Trail, The Political Becomes Personal
Labor Backs Holder-Winfield
Candidate Cries Foul At Clerk’s Office
Holder-Winfield Files For Public Dough
Holder-Winfield Wins Party Endorsement
Goldson Drops Out
Candidates Vow To Run On Clean Money
Score!
Holder-Winfield Eyes Harp’s Senate Seat

Tags:

Sign up for our morning newsletter

Don't want to miss a single Independent article? Sign up for our daily email newsletter! Click here for more info.


Post a Comment

Commenting has closed for this entry

Comments

Avatar for robn

Avatar for ELMCITYPROF

Avatar for William Kurtz

Avatar for PH

Avatar for One City Dump

Avatar for Pat from Westville

Avatar for nancycy

Avatar for Thomas Alfred Paine

Avatar for Mike Slattery

Avatar for Clarification

Avatar for Brian L. Jenkins

Avatar for aabg

Avatar for DrHunterSThompson

Avatar for robn

Avatar for Walt

Avatar for robn

Avatar for TrumanStreetResident

Avatar for jimjoebob

Avatar for William Kurtz

Avatar for Walt

Avatar for Thomas Alfred Paine

Avatar for Brian L. Jenkins

Avatar for robn

Avatar for William Kurtz

Avatar for Walt

Avatar for robn

Avatar for THREEFIFTHS

Avatar for TheMadcap